Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you not like about M&M?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SWBaxter" data-source="post: 2100013" data-attributes="member: 27926"><p>I think most or all of mine have already been mentioned, but just to add some votes:</p><p></p><p>- Some powers don't work well with ranks, since they're very front-loaded (by which I mean you get a big benefit from the first rank, any other ranks are comparitively marginal but cost the same). We generally house-ruled these to have a different cost structure, a high base cost plus a small cost per rank.</p><p> </p><p>- Fencepost conditions (events at either end of the probability curve) seem to come up a lot, due to the straight line probability "curve" of a single d20 roll. This is fine for single session scenarios, but we found it got a bit annoying in a campaign since character performance could fluctuate wildly from session to session. We switched to 2d10, and that made things better.</p><p> </p><p>- Power Level and the associated caps are all but useless as a balancing tool, we ended up having to carefully review each build anyway. We switched to a Champions-style approach of specifying appropriate point and effect ranges for different categories, that seemed to work better but was hard to calibrate.</p><p> </p><p>- As a corollary of the latter two points, combat powers below the PL of the expected opposition are very poor, and above the PL are incredibly effective. This might be intended, but it puts a huge emphasis on character efficiency that doesn't really match the rest of the "feel" of the game.</p><p> </p><p>- Very few of the sample characters are built efficiently, which can mislead new players (particularly if they're joining a group where everybody has experience with the system, and as such has characters that are just plain better at what they do).</p><p> </p><p>- Linking powers leads to a lot of point-saving schemes and some wonky costs. We ended up just disallowing this, instead adding a "Powers are linked" weakness for concepts with a suite of related powers.</p><p> </p><p>All in all, it's a cool game, but we found it was better for one-shots than campaigns straight out of the book. We ended up going back to Champions for supers campaigns.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SWBaxter, post: 2100013, member: 27926"] I think most or all of mine have already been mentioned, but just to add some votes: - Some powers don't work well with ranks, since they're very front-loaded (by which I mean you get a big benefit from the first rank, any other ranks are comparitively marginal but cost the same). We generally house-ruled these to have a different cost structure, a high base cost plus a small cost per rank. - Fencepost conditions (events at either end of the probability curve) seem to come up a lot, due to the straight line probability "curve" of a single d20 roll. This is fine for single session scenarios, but we found it got a bit annoying in a campaign since character performance could fluctuate wildly from session to session. We switched to 2d10, and that made things better. - Power Level and the associated caps are all but useless as a balancing tool, we ended up having to carefully review each build anyway. We switched to a Champions-style approach of specifying appropriate point and effect ranges for different categories, that seemed to work better but was hard to calibrate. - As a corollary of the latter two points, combat powers below the PL of the expected opposition are very poor, and above the PL are incredibly effective. This might be intended, but it puts a huge emphasis on character efficiency that doesn't really match the rest of the "feel" of the game. - Very few of the sample characters are built efficiently, which can mislead new players (particularly if they're joining a group where everybody has experience with the system, and as such has characters that are just plain better at what they do). - Linking powers leads to a lot of point-saving schemes and some wonky costs. We ended up just disallowing this, instead adding a "Powers are linked" weakness for concepts with a suite of related powers. All in all, it's a cool game, but we found it was better for one-shots than campaigns straight out of the book. We ended up going back to Champions for supers campaigns. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you not like about M&M?
Top